Skip to main content
Glama

Mailbox MCP

by com.mailbox-mcp.mcp

Rename or move a folder

rename_folder
Destructive

Rename a folder, or move it under a different parent - in IMAP these are the same operation, because a folder's name is its path. Pass parent to reparent it while keeping its name. THE MESSAGES INSIDE COME WITH IT, and so do any sub-folders: renaming "Projects" also moves "Projects/Q1", and the result lists every child that moved. REFUSES to rename INBOX (on IMAP that empties your inbox into a new folder rather than renaming anything) and refuses to rename Sent, Drafts, Trash, Junk or Archive (mail clients find those by a flag, not by name, and renaming one can leave your sent mail split across two folders). It also refuses a name that is already taken rather than risk merging two folders. Read the refusal and tell the user what it says - each one is protecting something.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe folder to rename, e.g. "Projects" or "Archive/2025".
parentNoMove it under this existing folder, keeping `newName` as the leaf. Use this rather than building the path by hand when you only want to reparent it.
newNameYesIts new name. A "/" makes a hierarchy, so "Archive/Projects" nests it under Archive.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, it discloses that messages and subfolders move with the folder, that the result lists moved children, and the precise refusal behaviors with their rationale. This gives the agent exactly the operational knowledge annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long, but nearly every sentence carries a distinct operational warning or clarification. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the warnings are grouped logically. Slightly verbose, but not padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive folder operation with no output schema, the description covers what moves, what refuses to rename, how to read the refusal, and what the result will show. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds extra meaning by clarifying that parent preserves the leaf name and that '/' in newName creates a hierarchy ('Archive/Projects' nests under Archive). It does not add much beyond the schema's property descriptions, hence not 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the exact operation ('Rename a folder, or move it under a different parent'), explains the IMAP path semantics, and the refusal list clearly differentiates it from creating or deleting folders. It is unambiguous against sibling tools like create_folder and delete_folder.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear conditions for the parent-based reparenting path and explicitly lists special folders that will be refused, as well as duplicate names. It stops short of naming alternatives like create_folder, delete_folder, or move_email, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Mailbox MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct actions and resource types, and the near-overlapping pairs (archive_email vs move_email, check_bounces vs check_receipts) are explicitly cross-referenced in their descriptions. However, the delivery-status pair genuinely overlaps — both scan inbound mail to answer "did my message get there?" — and archive_email is functionally a role-aware move_email, so an agent could still select the wrong one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

Virtually every tool follows a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear prefix families (check_*, create_*, draft_*, list_*, mark_*, read_*). The single outlier is not_junk, which breaks the mark_* symmetry of its counterpart mark_junk and is not a standard verb-noun construction, though it remains perfectly readable.

Tool Count3/5

31 tools is firmly in the heavy range, though email is a genuinely broad domain spanning send/reply/forward, three draft variants, folder management, flags, junk handling, and diagnostics. Real consolidation was possible — check_bounces and check_receipts could be one delivery-status tool, archive_email is a special case of move_email, and the read-state/flag pairs could take boolean parameters — but each tool has a defensible job.

Completeness4/5

The core email lifecycle is thoroughly covered: send/reply/forward, three draft types plus draft editing, read/search/list/thread, full folder CRUD, move/archive/delete, flags, read state, junk handling, and file-upload intake. Minor gaps exist — there is no permanent-deletion or purge tool, no filter/rules management, and identity/contact maintenance is deliberately out of scope — but real user workflows can be completed without dead ends.

Resources